A Majority Of Americans Believe The US Government No Longer Operates Within The Constitution

Tyler Durden's picture

A rather indicative poll released by Rasmussen earlier this week finds that a majority of Americans (44%) now believe that the government operates outside the confines of the Constitution, compared to just 39% who believe government does not take liberties with the precepts laid out by the founding fathers (and 17% were busy watching dancing with the stars to have an opinion either way). Some other unflattering findings on US democracy: "Earlier surveys have shown that just one-in-five voters believe that the government today has the consent of the governed.
Forty-eight percent (48%) see the government as a threat to individual rights.
According to the Declaration of Independence, governments are formed to protect certain inalienable rights." Not surprisingly, politicians are shown to not only be usurping and incompetent despots but biased as well: "As is often the case, there’s a wide gap between the perceptions of the Political Class
and those of Mainstream voters when it comes to the federal government.
Eighty-three percent (83%) of Political Class voters say the government
now operates within constitutional limits, but 62% of those in the
Mainstream don’t share that view." Most worryingly, "nearly two-out-of-three voters (65%) are at least somewhat angry at the current policies of the federal government, including 40% who are Very Angry." That's 65% with not even a whiff of austerity on the horizon...

While we uge readers to read the full survey for all queries, the following financial-related disclosure is important as it shows that the path the government is on will continue to make the vast majority of the American population increasingly angrier.

If readers find these results disappointing now, we suggest waiting until austerity is adopted and 5 year interest-free installment plans are no longer offered on those 10 LCD TVs you just must have.

And while the topic of the Federal Reserve was not breached this time, the last time around Ben Bernanke's despotic institution was discussed, nearly 90% of Americans (those who actually knew what it is) expressed a very unfavorable opinion. The other 10% were probably all Wall Street executives.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
mikla's picture

"Normal" people tolerate a *lot*.  Until they don't.

Just watch Ireland as an example.  The same will happen in the US.

High Plains Drifter's picture

I hope and pray you are right. There aren't too many more options on this. The tree of liberty must be watered.

Founders Keeper's picture

[I hope and pray you are right. There aren't too many more options on this. The tree of liberty must be watered.]---High Plains Drifter

Thanks for your post, High Plains. 

I find the following a helpful guide:

Flying to Arms: FOUR Criteria Legitimate Armed Rebellion:

1. When laws are no longer made by a legislature elected by the people.

2. When our form of government exists without our consent.

3. Taxation without representation.

4. When authority is no longer derived from ourselves.

–SAMUEL ADAMS

(See Samuel Adams, aka Father of the American Revolution. Ref. circular letter reproduced in the Massachusetts Gazette 9-12-1786. Letter drafted by special committee [member Samuel Adams] authorized by the Boston Town Meeting to express to the governor their disapproval of the Shays Riots. The Shays Riots did not meet the above criteria.)

"I often asked myself, is this exactly in the spirit of the patriarch of liberty, Samuel Adams? Is it as he would express it? Will he approve of it?...be assured that there exists not in the heart of man a more faithful esteem than mine to you[Samuel Adams] and that I shall ever bear you the most affectionate veneration and respect."

–THOMAS JEFFERSON

(Letter from President Thomas Jefferson to Samuel Adams, March 29th, 1801)

The Second Amendment of the US Constitution was not included in the Bill of Rights in order to protect guns rights for deer hunters. Hunting is a given. The Second Amendment first and foremost protects our right to bear arms in the event they must be used to threaten or dispatch enemies of said constitution. It is another check on tyranny. Understand, when the US Constitution is at stake, defending it by armed rebellion is always always always "on the table."

Give me liberty or give me death!

High Plains Drifter's picture

I only hope and pray I can be half the man Samuel Adams was ,drunk or sober.

midtowng's picture

Samuel Adams wasn't that great. Just look at what he said/did during Shay's Rebellion.

High Plains Drifter's picture

Not to mention what Washington did during the Whiskey rebellion.

SWRichmond's picture

So....

The genius of the Second Amendment is this: it leaves the ultimate political power dispersed in the hands of the many where it cannot be (ab)used until the many are themselves abused. 

Jasper M's picture

Oh, Well SAID, Sir!

 

 

 

Paul Bogdanich's picture

The point being that the founding father crushed all slave rebellions. 

JLee2027's picture

They did?  Please name these rebellions as I see none in the history books.

snowball777's picture

You need some unexpurgated books, Jack.

desafio's picture

hey genius

maybe you a oughtta try to read some a different history books

SWRichmond's picture

That's not the point, but you raise an interesting one.  Slaves were forbidden arms, and for a very good reason which you point out.  The Framers knew how they'd won their freedom; the progressive movement's war on private firearm ownership reveals them as slaveholder-wannabees.

If you're one of those people who discount everything said or written by the Framers because of slavery then go read Howard Zinn and don't try to waste my time.

tamboo's picture

let me know when we have the right to bear

nuclear weapons, etc.

good luck bump firing against someone with a real gun,

or a tank.

chopper read's picture

hey, asshole. did it ever occur to you that those driving the tanks are our own?  military country folk going to turn on their own people for some ruling elites?  

 

...i believe you will be surprised.  careful which side of the line you defend, fuckwit. 

SWRichmond's picture

There are not enough tanks to accomplish what you suggest, nor will there ever be.  As long as very large numbers of individuals own and are moderately proficient with modern rifles, the Second Amendment still retains its teeth.  I don't need nukes or tanks, your point is ridiculous.

Please define "real gun."  What is "bump firing?"  It sounds like a way to constantly miss what one is shooting at while expending large amounts of ammunition.

 

nmewn's picture

Officers swear an oath to protect the Constitution from all enemies foreign & domestic.

Line officers take the oath deadly serious...the military won't be attacking civilians in the US for a very long time, if ever. Any general who would give such an order would not be able to walk among his own men or the civilians he gave the order to attack.

So your point is bullshit.

Sun_Tzu's picture

I hope you are correct.  However, I wonder how they cover the Constitution in the military academies.  One of the problems with understanding the constitution is the natural evolution of language -- as well as the deliberate redifinition of key words used the document.  For example, the judicial branch seems to have seriously undermined the people's rights with the redefinition of the word 'jury'. 

I wrote an article about the language of the constitution a few years ago covering that very problem.  It seems that judges now order juries to ignore the clear intent of the constitution, as it was written.

samsara's picture

What was the percent of people wanting to start a rebellion in the early 1770's?   I think it was less than 20%.   A large percentage was comfortable, with the current arrangement or outright tories.

20% of 300 million is 60 million across 50 states. 

I'd say that 5% of really pissed off people with guns could cause a lot of ruckus.

It don't take that many.  Really. Coupled with the comment about Maslow's needs.   Pretty soon alot of people will turn.

 

As Kunstler said,  they might just "Have trouble answering the Phone"

goldsaver's picture

Current historical estimates is that a total of 3% of the population were directly involved in open warfare against the British. So yeah, wouldn't take much.

Things that go bump's picture

They were fighting an oppressor who was on the other side of an ocean it took several months to cross.  The situations are not the same.  Our oppressor is sitting in our collective laps trying to regulate and surveil our  every breath.  I think it would require substantial popular support. 

TeddyRoosevelt's picture

I've been waiting for these discussions to turn up...

I believe such an uprising will need to take place as an organized tax revolt.  Tax revolt backed by:

1.  local law enforcement sworn to protect citizens from a Federal and State abuse.

2.  a phone-tree type of organized, armed protection from those State and Federal authorites that come to collect their unconstitutional pound of flesh.

Think 70 armed folks from close by promise to show up at your doorstep when the IRS stops by.

chopper read's picture

this is a good idea.  local folks all agree to send IRS agents packing, and do not honor any court orders against them as they relate to un-Constitutional Federal taxation.  again, if anyone comes to collect you, then 70 of your closest friends show up to militarily resist.  

velobabe's picture

you want to hear a funny story? well, when i was living in woody creek colorado, i would hear series of gun shots in the late of night. i could not figure out what they were coming from. i would look in the paper the next morning and no news of anyone being shot. so i thought well maybe HST was shooting at ed down the road. this was going on for years. then i finally called the cops and told them i had just heard a series of gun shots at 2AM. he said when a deer or elk is hit or grazed by a car and not quite dead yet, the officers are called out to shot the elk or deer dead.

cosmictrainwreck's picture

there's something there...something.....i just know it...

hedgeless_horseman's picture

If it was late October, opening morning, one shot coming from up on the ridge towards Ruedi reservoir, then it might have been me. 

velobabe's picture

Oh  R E A L L Y †

well i would ride that ridge above ruedi reservoir quite a bit H H.

i know it well, towards triangle peak (white mountain) you mean? dual access, multi use trail, motorcycles and mountain bikes could ride that single track, right? not the other side of ruedi, that is harsh exploration and some private and no mechical machines allowed, cause it would drop down into private owned lands.

who are you? i bet you really don't know that terrain. your just googling or something. cause that is steep and technical. are you charlie or janson?

ebworthen's picture

The laws are supposedly made by an elected legislature, however, that legislature may now be elected via campaign contributions from corporations.  Remember also that other piece of bovine excrement dropped by the Supine Court - KELO.

When you consider lobbyists, attorneys, a judiciary that legislates from the bench, routine search and seizure violations of the 4th amendment, bailouts, TARP, TALF, POMO, IMF "contributions", etc., etc., etc. - then we have met the four criteria already.

StychoKiller's picture

Add increasing Govt surveillance of the populace and arrests against the populace for surveilling the police and other public servants to your list as well! :(

1fortheroad's picture

The US Corp is not required to operate within the constitution, it is not a lawfull

government. 

(The original United States has been usurped by a separate and different UNITED STATES formed in 1871, which only controls the District of Columbia and it’s territories, and which is actually a corporation (the UNITED STATES CORPORATION) that acts as our current government. The United States Corporation operates under Corporate/Commercial/Public Law rather than Common/Private Law.

The original Constitution was never removed; it has simply been dormant since 1871. It is still intact to this day. This fact was made clear by Supreme Court Justice Marshall Harlan (Downes v. Bidwell, 182, U.S. 244 1901) by giving the following dissenting opinion: “Two national governments exist; one to be maintained under the Constitution, with all its restrictions; the other to be maintained by Congress outside and Independently of that Instrument.”)

 

This is happening now, a new Republic.

http://www.panamalaw.org/update_republic_of_the_united_states_11-18-2010.html

http://republicoftheunitedstates.org/node/5


Sp00ky's picture

Okay, great - armed rebellion it is.  Who, exactly, are you planning on attacking to regain control of the country and reintroduce the Constitution?  I mean, I see and hear people all over the nation hinting at armed rebellion and "taking back our country", but I have yet to see or hear of any clear cut plan. 

Just wondering.

ibjamming's picture

There wouldn't be...the organizers would be arrested.

 

There's a huge difference between fighting oppressors who are across the ocean where it will take weeks to arrive...and fighting the US government with the greatest army on earth...right here.  As usual, you need the army on your side...and they kicked out the general who would have probably helped...remember the Rolling Stone interviews when he called the current administration a bunch of idiots? 

ATM's picture

who do you think would start the armed rebellion? it is exactly our armed forces or at least a good percentage of them along with a large number of private citizens.

i know a good number of military and the currents of anger that I witness here are the same that they display. they're angry, they're trained and they have access to heavy weapons.

It will start with them.

ibjamming's picture

I don't think it will START with them.  But as I said...you need the army on your side.  Whomever has it...WILL win. 

chopper read's picture

i agree.  this will very possibly be a military coup towards restoration of the US Constitution.

 

however, a tax revolt and organized armed defense against any authority wishing to make a Federal arrest is also a possibility.  as someone mentioned above, it only takes the commitment of 70 neighbors to come to the aid of another.  as soon as others see this happening, then it is bound to get contagious.  i reckon our communities around country towns are cohesive enough to begin this process.  

TeddyRoosevelt's picture

I've been waiting for these discussions to turn up...

I believe such an uprising will need to take place as an organized tax revolt.  Tax revolt backed by:

1.  local law enforcement sworn to protect citizens from a Federal and State abuse.

2.  a phone-tree type of organized, armed protection from those State and Federal authorites that come to collect their unconstitutional pound of flesh.

Think 70 armed folks from close by promise to show up at your doorstep when the IRS stops by.

jakethesnake76's picture

i beg to slightly disagree with that course i can name three men who won revolutions without firing a shot ,well Jesus's follower did take up a sword and cut of a man's ear (bad aim) lol but Jesus put it back on . Gandhi never fired shot but took back a country and Martin Luther king also had to endure some fire hoses and beatings probably but finished the Job that we started with the civil war . My point is if we Men have inner strength then maybe i wont have to break out our guns , which reminds me i gotta get some more ammo and a site for my deer gun lol 

Founders Keeper's picture

[i beg to slightly disagree with that course i can name three men who won revolutions without firing a shot...]---jakethesnake76

Hi Jake.  Thank you for your thoughtful Reply. 

Personally, I believe we have NOT met the criteria stated by Samuel Adams.  Not yet. 

Prepare for the worst, and hope for the best. 

[...which reminds me i gotta get some more ammo and a site for my deer gun...]Thanks for the chuckle this morning.  I'm thinking that falls under the "prepare for the worst" category.

God Bless you and your family this holiday season.

Vendetta's picture

the tree of despotism has certainly been well watered

Azannoth's picture

They asked the people if they think the government respects the Constitution or not, they didn't ask if people where willing to tolerate it, this survey does not measure the level of hate against the government and does not measure how far the people are willing to let the government push it

 

A well fed dog will not bite the hand that beats it, if you wondered why no1 is let to starve through food stamps, this is a 'controled demolition' of society they let the economy collapse and replace it with giveaways and other social benefits, its the same what they had is Sovite Russia, no income no money but no1 was allowed to starve on the street

seventree's picture

This is OT and I know it, apologies, but I just had to pass it on somewhere:

Illinois, Maryland and Massachusetts have specifically made it "illegal to record an on-duty police officer even if the encounter involves you and may be necessary to your defense, and even if the recording is on a public street where no expectation of privacy exists."

http://articles.cnn.com/2010-11-25/tech/shooting.video.tsa_1_tsa-s-office-tsa-checkpoints-shooting-video/2?_s=PM:TECH

Kali's picture

And that is the problem, a law like this, is at face value to any idiot,  unconstitutional.  We don't need the men in dresses at the Supreme Court to tell us it is not.

This is not the first jurisdiction I have heard of passing a law like this.

Shoo, I am gonna have to stock more popcorn.  Fireworks are getting fast and furious in all arenas.

Hephasteus's picture

Laws are all based on enforceability. If a law can be enforced without engendering a massive revolt and refusal it's considered a good law. Morality has nothing to do with it. It's all about force.

Kali's picture

Precisely.  Then enforced "selectively".  Does this extend to "journalists", as if any real ones are left?  Really, I am freak shitting lately. Wonder if they are gonna extend unemployment or not?  When are they really gonna use the "fuck-you-bald-in-your-face" starvation card?

"The revolution will not be televised" is echoing thru my mind.

seventree's picture

It certainly extends to "citizen journalists" who happen to catch a cop beating the shit out of an unresisting "suspect." Once tv stations have this it is harder to suppress, but getting it to them untraceably can be a risky challenge for the photographer.

Kali's picture

Maybe.  But remember who all the TV stations are beholden to.  And, if they use it "selectively", say, against TERRORISTS, domestic or not, who is gonna peep about it.  They are protecting us, you see (or don't).  But, back to the topic, it's just a piece of paper.  Which is true.  Ideas on a piece of paper.  Just like fiat.

Bagbalm's picture

Time to leave those states.